Corbs wrote:...Did you give the podcast a listen? ...
Of course not, too much to do, too little time; and having read Grafton and others such as Townend, Harvey and Hardy - and spoken to some of these - who were there, and know what they are writing and talking about, I have the information.
Corbs wrote:...Maybe I am guilty of courting controversy with that title. From memory I believe Simon refers to Grafton's book. I think it's more the picture that authors like Colonel Rogers paint of ET that Simon is seeking to challenge.
Sadly, the picture Rogers' paints is pretty much correct as regards loco design. Thompson's major and undoubted success was the B1, a good synthesis of proven components that made a successful machine, and Rogers' gave this full credit. The continuation of what was an established process of upgrading the O4 was a success. Everything else, mediocre to poor: on the evidence of subsequent performance. Just try DW 'Bill' Harvey on the L1. It's damning. Peppercorn was subsequently able to pick up the wide firebox programme on Thompson's departure, and to rearrange the layout into a pair of very successful classes 'just like that'. This was made possible by eliminating the very weak frame layouts Thompson insisted on,
which his own design staff appointees had already made a start on redrafting behind his back, so they were ready to hand when Thompson departed...
Thompson's undoubted strength was administration; he was a class act in this field and had he focussed all his effort there then he would be seen very differently. But he wanted to be a designing CME, which was not his strength. He's right up there with Scott of the Antarctic, boldly going where he had insufficient ability...
